Wednesday, July 17, 2019

A False Claim about the Evolution of Christianity

Since materialists believe that everything evolved, that also means religion itself evolved as well. A Darwinist believes that societies conjured up gods via natural selection when their population levels reached a million people, and these gods were ill-tempered.

Materialists believe that since everything else evolved, religion must have as well. One foolish speculation is not logical and reeks of desperation.
Background image courtesy of Why?Outreach
There are far too many fallacies in this foolish speculation to count. (One reason biblical creationists emphasize logic and critical thinking to so that people can learn to catch atheists and evolutionists in their bad reasoning and falsehoods.) There stories reek of desperation. Such a notion is also self-refuting, such as how love, compassion, forgiveness, and other good things are overlooked.
A typical theory on the ‘evolution of religion’ commits multiple logical blunders, not the least of which is ignoring evidence.
What’s wrong with this line of reasoning? ‘The Greeks reached a certain population size. At that population size, the idea of Zeus arose. Zeus was a vengeful god. Having a vengeful god gave the powerful a way to control the population. Conclusion: This explains the origin of religions.’
To laugh and also learn, read the rest by clicking on "Did Christianity Evolve from a ‘Vengeful God’ Myth?"


Wednesday, July 10, 2019

Compartmentalizing Creation

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

When I began doing creation apologetics many centuries ago, I foolishly tried to divorce the Bible from scientific and logical evidence. My approach was only discussing theology when necessary, keeping scientific evidence for creation separate, arguing on neutral ground. Essentially, I was compartmentalizing.


We cannot separate science and theology, especially when discussing origins. It may seem valid on the surface, but such an approach will not work.
Floral compartments image credit: Unsplash / Michael Aleo
One big problem with the idea of neutral ground is that it is contrary to Scripture. If you ride up to the top of the hill and get the bigger picture, you'll also see that discussions of origins are metaphysical in nature. Really, they involve theology. 

Have you ever noticed that folks who want both sides presented in an unbiased view so people can "make up their own minds" seldom (if ever) accurately represent biblical creation science? They are biased toward materialism, therefore favoring atheistic interpretations of evidence.


via GIPHY

You want equal time, pilgrim? The secularists dominate science, so creation science ministries exist so we can present evidence that is suppressed. But they don't want you to hear our side, nor do they want to hear it themselves. Suppressing evidence is not science, nor is shouting down creationists and crying, "Liar!" while throwing outdated, irrelevant secularist links at us. You savvy? For an interesting discussion on accusations of creationists selectively rejecting science, see "Denouncing Science".

Both creationists and evolutionists have their starting points. Those of us with a high view of Scripture presuppose the truth of the Bible and creation, while evolutionists insist that their materialistic views are the only way to use science. Secularists fail to realize that their arbitrary view of science is based on metaphysical philosophies.

To take the compartmentalization concept a step further, I still have a tendency to do that. (Posts and articles on this site lean more toward theology than those at Piltdown Superman or Radaractive, but there is still some theology over there.) While I occasionally use this site to discuss various biblical topics and some may be considered side issues, I realized that I am compartmentalizing again.

My calling is to help equip Christians defend the faith regarding origins, so I tend to avoid certain side issues. (On more than one occasion, I have been surprised by an out-of-the-blue query at The Question Evolution Project on Fazebook where I had to reply, "I have no idea.") Like with politics, sometimes topics must necessarily overlap — especially when they involve core doctrines of the faith or matters that are extremely important to Christians. We cannot fully compartmentalize between science, the Bible, and certain doctrines.

The article linked below is specific for Creation Ministries International (after all, they can speak of their own ministry's experiences and policies), but I think you will see that it applies to related ministries as well. There are two feedback letters and their replies. To see it, click on "Should CMI ‘stick to the science’?"



Wednesday, July 3, 2019

Evangelism and the Genesis Flood

While professing Christians claim to believe the Bible, far too many put atheistic interpretations of modern science philosophies into a magisterial position. That is, Scripture is interpreted through the spectacles of long ages. This is backwards.


Some professing Christians shy away from or even deny the global Genesis Flood. They think it is a problem for evangelism. Such a view causes several problems.
Credit: RGBStock / rkirbycom
Some who compromise with secular views put down biblical creation with the falsehood that it hinders evangelism, so they ride for the old earth brand. (Did you ever notice that these folks usually deny the global Flood of Genesis in one way or another?) Bible believers teach the hard truth of sin, Judgment, repentance, and redemption.

People may shy away from the Flood because of old earth beliefs, but also because it describes judgment against the wicked people of the day. It is referred to in the Bible, and Peter even likened the Flood to the coming final Judgment (2 Peter 3:5-6). Discussing the Genesis Flood is actually helpful in evangelism.
Some Christians claim that insisting on a literal Genesis is a hindrance to evangelism. Since science has supposedly proved that the creation and Flood it describes weren’t real, historical events, they see a literal Genesis as an intellectual stumbling block to potential converts. However, this thinking is completely backward. It is the denial, not the affirmation, of Genesis that is damaging to effective evangelism.
To read the rest of this short article, click on "The Genesis Flood and Evangelism".



Thursday, June 27, 2019

Evolution and the Nature of God

You may have noticed that purveyors of atoms-to-astronomer evolution are very evangelistic, making efforts to destroy the faith of Bible believers. It would not surprise me if they eventually wore name badges and white shirts, rode bicycles and came to your door with the "good news" of Darwinism. Some try to tell us that God created through evolution.


Adding evolution to the Bible impugns the nature of God. Evolution is cruel and wasteful, which is no secret among its adherents.
Original image before modication: Freeimages /Mario Alberto Magallanes Trejo
Look at all the wonders and beauty around us. Mother Nature perfected everything through the magic of evolution, you know. That may sound good, but these sidewinders are deceitful. Way back in the thrilling days of yesteryear, I presented creation science talks in churches. One point I raised is that evolution is that evolution is wasteful and cruel, thought some wolves among us who profess to believe the Bible want us to embrace Darwin. Of course, atheists want to destroy our faith and have us to add evolution. No surprise there, it's who they are and what they do.

Although he believes in evolution, one devotee implores us to holler "Whoa!" to human evolution. Does someone in authority send out a memo, "Okay, all y'all stop evolving right now"? I thought evolution was an inexorable mystical force of materialism that supersedes God.

Evolution is a wasteful, cruel, inefficient method, and I am glad it is false. It impugns the nature of God and violates Scripture — indeed, it also violates the gospel message. Indeed, indicating that God "needs" evolution is insulting the Creator! Professing Christians who claim to believe the Bible need to cowboy up and learn what it really says.
A few sentences from this evolutionist’s plea should cure theologians of theistic evolution.

Under the shadow of the March of Progress icon, geneticist Alasdair Mackenzie shouts, “It’s time we stopped human evolution” — really? That should start a conversation—The Conversation. Isn’t evolution an engine of progress? Isn’t it God’s method of populating the Earth with endless things most beautiful? At its base, isn’t Mother Nature a benevolent, caring force?
I'd be much obliged if you'd read the rest of the article, "Evolutionist Cries, We Must Stop Human Evolution!"



Wednesday, June 19, 2019

Why Creation in the Image of God is Important

When atheists and evolutionists will say that harm to another person is wrong, they are tacitly rejecting their own worldviews and standing on the biblical worldview. According to them, man is just another evolved animal and is nothing special. No Bible-respecting person should add evolution to it.

The fact that we are created in God's image has important ramifications throughout the Bible. It also gives us hope, unlike the evolutionary worldview.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
We are created in the image of God. This is affirmed several times in Genesis and its importance is seen many times throughout the Bible. The atheistic worldview is incoherent and full of despair by its very nature. The biblical creationist understands, however, that we are image-bearers of God, and it is being renewed in us until the final, ultimate redemption and Judgment. We are not just animals, we are different and special.
Atheism views man as simply a material being like all other animals. In many ways, this is the predominant view of popular culture: man may have “evolutionary advantages” over animals in reason, communication, and some physical abilities but is not a spiritual or sacred being with a purpose and destiny higher than that of the animals.)
In this view, man lives and dies like the beast. Thus concentration camps, gulags, killing fields, and abortion clinics are all monuments to atheism.  
. . .  
God’s Word, in contrast, views man as the pinnacle of God’s handiwork. On the sixth day of Creation, as His final work, God created man as a physical and spiritual being. . . .
But what exactly is the image of God and what are the implications of man being made in His image? The answers and applications of such questions are essential to the Christian because they dictate human happiness or wretchedness—and often life and death. 
To read the entire article, click on "God’s Image—The Difference Maker".

Wednesday, June 12, 2019

The Days of Genesis One

Since we are bombarded at every turn with assertions of evolution and millions of years as a fact, many Christians try to reconcile the days of Creation with long periods of time. Expressions like, "Well I think the days are God's days, and we can't know how long they really are!" Some are sidewinders who know precisely what is going on and deliberately corrupt God's Word.

The days of creation are confusing to people who do not accept what the Bible actually says. Day means day. If God wanted us to think he meant long ages, there were other words he could have used.
Background image credit: freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska
To be blunt, it doesn't matter what you or I think. The important thing is what God said in Scripture, and that too many professing Christians are uninformed about the Bible they claim to believe — especially at the foundation, the first chapter of Genesis. Some misquote 2 Peter 3:8, "One day is like a thousand years", which does not help much because it would make creation week six thousand years long, unhelpful for deep time. Also, the verse cancels this idea out, "...and a thousand years like one day". Read the context, people.

"Evening and morning, one day...evening and morning, the second (third, fourth, fifth, sixth) day." God defined yom (יוֹם) as day. A child or anyone else who has been uncorrupted by secularism can plainly see that day means literal day. To get millions or billions of years out of Genesis, you must perform eisegesis and put them into it first. For them, God cannot preserve his Word or make it understandable — or they are unwilling to believe it.



There are compromisers who adamantly refuse to let a day in Genesis 1 be an actual day. Biblical scholars (even those who do not believe the plain meaning of the text) know that yom means day. It is interesting that Bible-deniers circle the wagons to defend against logic and scholarship, trying to take word and force it to mean long ages. They ignorie the fact that if God had wanted us to think the creation days were long ages, there were other Hebrew words he could have used! (They also ignore Exodus 20:11 and 31:17, and essentially call Jesus, Paul, Peter and others erroneous or even liars.) Let's be honest about what the text actually says and perform serious exegesis.
Were the days of Creation Week of 24 hours duration or were they long periods of time? This article will discuss the Hebrew ‘time’ words which the author had available to him and what meaning he intended to convey by his choice of the specific words he used.
I hope you will read the rest of this important article and even save it for reference. To continue, click on "How long were the days of Genesis 1?" I also recommend "Genesis and the Character of God".

Wednesday, June 5, 2019

Gopher Wood and Noah's Ark

Something that has puzzled readers of the sixth chapter of Genesis is the use of the term gopher wood. Footnotes often say that the "Hebrew term is uncertain", and Bible translations differ —

"I know what that means, Cowboy Bob! Noah commanded his sons, "Shem, you gopher water, Ham can gopher more pitch, and Japheth can gopher wood".


No.

Anyway, Bible translations differ. Many use the term gopher wood, and using the translations in my copy of theWord Bible Software, Coverdale (1535,) Geneva (1587), and Tyndale (1526) translated it as pine. The NIV translates it as cypress and adds the "uncertain" reference. The KJV, NKJV, NASB, HCSB, ESV, WEB all render the term as gopher wood.


Noah built the Ark out of gopher wood. What was it? The answer may not be what you would expect, and has biblical implications as well as science.
Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Cimerondagert (CC by-SA 4.0)
An excellent possibility is that God was not specifying a particular tree that has disappeared since then, but that Noah was to use hardwood. Getting into the Hebrew language, we see the root word that is used with brimstone, which is now called sulfur. This makes the plant material strong. The Ark, the wood, the pitch used to coat it all foreshadow the work of Jesus Christ. We can gain not only construction insight here, but also some theological principles!
Scientific facts can sometimes yield surprising biblical insight. For example, lignins make hardwood trees hard. They are a complex group of organic compounds found in the cell walls of plants that give structural rigidity to the plants’ overall growth and architecture. One type of plant lignin contains sulphur, while the other is sulphur-free. It’s the sulphur-bearing lignins that form the fundamental structural basis of all hardwood trees used for lumber products.

This botanical fact casts an interesting theological light on Genesis 6:14, where God instructs Noah to build a large ship. The Ark allowed him and his family (eight people total) and various representatives of the animal kingdom to survive the impending global Flood and repopulate the earth. Specifically, Noah is commanded, “Make yourself an ark of gopher wood.”
To read the rest of the article, click on "Scientific and Biblical Truth Converge for Gopher Wood".

Wednesday, May 29, 2019

Trusting Bible Manuscripts

When pondering ancient texts, people wonder why we should trust biblical manuscripts. After all, we do not have the originals. We do have copies that have been passed down through time. Lots of them. In fact, there are far fewer copies of works by Plato, Caesar, and other ancient writers, and there is a tremendous gap between when they were written and the oldest manuscripts — and people trust their authenticity for some reason. What makes the Bible more reliable?


People wonder why we should trust the Bible since the manuscripts are so ancient. There are many reasons to be certain that God has preserved his Word.
Section of P-45 Greek papyrus manuscript of the Gospel of Luke via Wikimedia Commons
It has been suggested that since people tend to worship and idolize things, God has not made the originals available. That may also be the reason the body of Moses was buried by God (Deuteronomy 34:5–6). For that matter, I heard someone say that if a miracle happened on a particular spot, people would adore the spot instead of the one who performed the miracle. I'll allow that this is all speculation, but it makes sense.

Biblical manuscripts have been found that date way back yonder, and older copies have been discovered as well. When compared, there are no significant differences, and nothing has ever contradicted major Christian doctrines. Jewish scribes took their work very seriously, and it wasn't just a matter of corralling several manuscripts and picking those based on personal preference, nor was it like a supervisor tossing a copy on a desk and telling the scribe, "Here, copy this. And try not to spill your soy latte on it this time!" It was a sacred duty. Also note that Christians do not attempt to hide known variations. That is why you will see footnotes in your Bibles.

Those ancient scrolls are mighty fragile. One was recently "read" through imaging technology. The scroll is essentially the same as what is available today.

There is an area of scholarship called textual criticism where manuscripts are evaluated. (This is not to be confused with higher criticism, which utilizes circular reasoning based on secularist presuppositions.) It has been shown that God has indeed preserved his Word.
Why does my reference Bible have notes at the bottom of the page that say things like “Some manuscripts add . . .” or “some early manuscripts omit . . .”?
This is not a minor issue. Headed by Bart Ehrman, a growing movement claims that we cannot be sure what the original Bible said.
First off, there is no other ancient literature so well attested by so many manuscripts (handwritten copies of the original text) over such a length of time, as the Christian’s Bible. But since we don’t have the originals, written by Isaiah or Paul for example, would the many copies made over the years introduce thousands of mistakes, as Erhman and others believe?
Let’s check it out so you know what to say next time someone makes this claim.
To read the rest or download the audio, click on "Trusting the Text". The author is Brian H. Edwards, and you may be interested in some of his related material, here.



Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Malevolence and Meditation

The word meditation has many connotations, and if you study on it, you will see that it has a variety of meanings. Some folks might think of formal meditation practices used in Eastern religions, but others may be pondering something and call that "meditating". Meditation is popular nowadays, but what do people really mean by it?

There are many forms of meditation in use today, but they can lead to unpleasant experiences and occult influence. Christians are told to meditate, but we must do it the right way.
Credit: Unsplash / Yogi Madhav
If you spend a great deal of time thinking and focusing on something (or someone), you're meditating on it. Take a gander at what people are doing and see if you agree with me. They meditate on church activities, politics, global climate change hysteria, sports, a favorite musician, sex, and so on. (I remember hearing a caller to a political talk radio show and the host exclaimed, "Your religion is liberalism!" The caller replied, "Yes!") This can also have a negative thrust. I can name a few atheists and anti-creationists who essentially meditate on their hatred for God's Word. See Psalm 38:12, for example.

We have to be careful when using Christian meditation. There are people who will tell you to avoid it because New Agers, Eastern yogis and other occultists use meditation techniques. That can be guilt by association; occultists breathe air, too, shall we avoid that because they do it? (I'll allow that my example is hyperbolic, but I hope it gets the idea across.) However, caution is advised.

I used to oppose the concept that people can get into certain states of consciousness and open themselves up to occult influences. Even materialists are seeing negative effects resulting from meditation. Notice also that such practices are often used by people who are indulging in other occult and paranormal practices.

You may be surprised to learn that Christians are told to meditate. The main point is to focus on the Word of God (Psalm 1:2, Psalm 77:12, 1 Timothy 4:15 KJV), not on ourselves or other things.
What is meditation? It can be very different things. It can be an attempt to empty the mind. Or, by contrast, it can be the purposeful attempt to focus the mind with certain kinds of thoughts, to the exclusion of other thoughts. The word meditation by itself needs modifiers to be meaningful. The intuitive picture people have of meditators is that they are sitting in some kind of lotus position, with eyes closed, doing something. But what? And what are the consequences of whatever they are doing in their inner selves?

At New Scientist, Donna Lu reports that “A quarter of people who meditate experience negative mental states.” That’s a surprisingly high percentage for an activity widely advertised to be beneficial.
 To read the entire article, click on "Some Meditation Practices Can Be Scary".

Wednesday, May 15, 2019

The Problem of Evil and the Biblical Worldview

One of the biggest problems for unbelievers and Christians alike is what is often called the problem of evil. People have different concepts of what they consider evil, but those are essentially based on trends in cultures or even personal preferences.

People say that something is evil, but they need a consistent standard. This is a way to deal with it and to realize that we are finite; we cannot understand everything. We live by faith.
Credit: Freeimages / createsima
The candies I'm chawing right now are evil because I'm not supposed to have them, but it's my fault for eating the things. The bird that flew away with Captain America's hot dog was evil. There are some Christians who consider rock music to be evil because, well, because. Others consider country music evil. Those examples are personal preferences (and a bit of sarcasm), not there is no actual evil involved.

Natural disasters are evil because of the destruction of property and loss of life, but that is really nature doing what nature does. Terrorists are evil, but from their perspective, they are seeking some kind of greater good. Brian Sims acts like pro-life activists are evil, but pro-life people consider him evil for advocating the murders of unborn children. One tinhorn considers biblical creationists liars and evil because we present evidence refuting his deep time and idolatrous position.

There has to be an ultimate standard for good and evil. This cannot be found in an evolutionary or atheistic worldview, since they think we are simply responding to our chemical impulses; when they complain that something is evil, they are standing on the biblical creationist worldview! I challenged the tinhorn mentioned earlier that, if I was indeed lying, why would that be wrong according to his worldview? He was defeated because he could not give a cogent answer, and displayed his subjective opinion instead.

There are people who reject God because of evil in the world. After all, why doesn't he do something about it? God is the Creator and he is sovereign. We are not entitled to understand everything he does, but what kind of God would he be if his finite creation could fully understand him? Christians are to respond in faith that he has purposes and that ultimately, everything glorifies him. No, that is not an ego thing where he wants us to applaud his every move. The glory of God is far deeper than that.
Perhaps the most frequent argument used by skeptics against the Christian faith is that a good, loving, and all-powerful God wouldn't possibly allow evil (along with sorrow, pain, bloodshed, etc.) into his world. Evil obviously exists in our world. It is all around us. Thus, the biblical God can’t possibly exist. If he did, and he was indeed omnipotent, he would obviously do something about it! It is not only skeptics, however, who struggle with this “problem of evil.” The Christian who shares his faith will find that this question probably causes more people to doubt the validity of the Bible and the Christian faith than any other. This author, based only on his own anecdotal experiences, would argue that it is a greater stumbling block to people than is even the creation-evolution debate. Therefore, the Christian must be prepared to explain the existence of evil. Fortunately, within the Christian worldview it is possible to do just that. Outside the Christian worldview, it is not. There are no adequate explanations for evil in other worldviews.
To finish reading, click on "Creation and the Problem of Evil".


Wednesday, May 8, 2019

Make a Bible Casserole with Current Trends

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Christians who believe in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible have been scorned for centuries. Many of us have been persecuted in varying forms, even to the point of death. People do not want to be reminded that there is a Creator who is also their Judge, and they are accountable to him. We could make it easier by giving in on certain areas.

When we mix the Bible with cultural and secular science trends, we are elevating those above God's Word. Some folks think we should just give up and get with the times.
Credit: RGBStock / John Byer
Get with the times, don't be on the wrong side of history! Society changes, so should religious people, right? Not hardly! Cultures can change quickly. What was scandalous a few years ago is acceptable today. And back again. It was acceptable to be ant-Semitic in Germany, but that fell out of fashion, except that it is becoming acceptable for American leftists and Louis Farrakhan. Should we join in or is there an ultimate standard?

Women can be pastors despite what Scripture says. Atheist women can be pastors despite the Bible (and rational thought). Marriage can be redefined to include marriage to yourself, your pet, someone of the same sex, or whatever despite what God established — and societies accepted for millennia. Science is being hijacked to support leftist causes such as transgenderism and denying scientific facts of differences between men and women. Should we saddle up and ride with everyone else?

Science has shown that Earth is billions of years old, universal common ancestor evolution is a fact, everything began with the Big Bang, and so on. We don't need the clear teachings of the Bible, and we can pick whatever "science" confirms our biases. All that scientific evidence for the young earth and refuting evolution can be discarded so we can just get along with everyone. Should we join in?


While we're compromising, we may as well keep going. "Science has shown" that the virgin birth could not have happened. Miracles cannot happen at all because atheism. Obviously, Jesus could not have been raised from the dead. After all, Jesus as just a man of his time. Same for Paul, Peter, and the other New Testament writers, so all of them were limited in knowledge and made mistakes. Scriptura sub scientia using naturalistic (atheist) interpretations of ever-changing man-made science philosophies. God can take a nap in the next room, we'll call him if we decide he is necessary.

Group hug, everybody!

When people reject the Bible's authority, they make it into a casserole:
  • obtain sciencey foundation as your large dish, making sure to select leftist trends and evolution to help undermine notions of biblical inerrancy
  • insert things that you want to believe
  • add a generous dose of cultural trends
  • select views from various religions for flavor
  • bake in the fires of Hell until golden brown
  • top with opinions of the moment
  • serve 
Variations on this recipe have been used for many years, but the acceleration toward evolutionary thinking and secularism have added more buffalo chips than it had in the past.

Without our biblical foundations, we have no basis for science and logic (which may be a reason so many secularists and leftists are unskilled in critical thinking). More than that, our faith is worthless — not only are we wasting our time, but we are without hope facing eternity.

Who do you want to please? I don't pay no nevermind to those who think I am a fool for Jesus and for the Word of God. Any Christian who believes the Bible should focus on the author and finisher of our faith, not the opinions of men and women. Those who reject the authority and inerrancy of the Word need to repent.

This article was inspired by one from Dr. R. Albert Mohler. I recommend for your edification "Should Christians Just Admit That The Bible 'Got It Wrong' And Move On?"


Wednesday, May 1, 2019

Thought Experiment: Rebuilding Science

The thought experiment concept has been around for a very long time, even before mathematics became a formal discipline. Scientists use it for a "what if" approach to imagine the results of an event or procedure. Here, we start with an apocalyptic event.


Read a thought experiment where the world is devastated and we have to rebuild. However, we also need to rebuild science. We can do it - because we still have the Bible.
Credit: Pixabay / Pete Linforth
In a sudden global catastrophe, our nice planet gets wrecked. (In my version, atheists tried to destroy all creation science materials through special bombs, but they backfired and destroyed all science and many other things.) Yep, something terrible happened. We have to commence rebuilding, but we don't have science to work with.

So we have to rebuild science as well.

The Shivas were not able to destroy our Bibles, much to their chagrin. But the Bible contains what we need to make a new beginning. We can learn theology, logic, that the nature of the universe is predictable, and more. Atheists and other anti-creationists can help, but we cannot use their views for our foundations because science is impossible without God.

What follows is a set of three articles presenting the thought experiment and working through it.
Imagine that humanity has emerged from the rubble of a nuclear holocaust. All the science textbooks are gone. Years have passed and many things have been forgotten. In many cases, we don’t know what’s true and what isn’t. Is the earth round or flat? Does the earth go around the sun, or is it the other way around? We don’t have access to any of the sources we would normally turn to with questions like this, and if we want to find out, we have to build the tools to do so from scratch. But as you stagger forward from the ruins of civilization, you’re not completely bereft of everything, because you’re still holding a Bible, and your thinking is shaped on a fundamental level by the culture that arose from it.
To read the rest, click on "Dystopian science Part 1: Why the Bible enables science to work". Don't forget to come back for next two parts.
We know that the Bible can give rise to science in our dystopian scenario, because it has already given rise to science in the real world. From history, we know the founders of most of the branches of modern science were Christians. They were doing science because they believed they were, in the words of the great astronomer Johannes Kepler, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” They were using these very assumptions, and these assumptions are what underpins the entire field we call “science”. We can now go out and perform experiments, and then extrapolate those results logically (since logic is based in the Person and Word of God) to come up with conclusions about how the world works. So it is not illogical to suggest that in a dystopian scenario, the Bible would again give rise to science, as long as there were still people around who wanted to “think God’s thoughts after Him.”

. . .

Science advances as older, sometimes flawed ideas are challenged and replaced with better ideas. And the Bible allows for this, because, while it is not a science textbook, it gives us a framework and a mandate for science. It also gives us a way of thinking that should enable us to more and more closely approach the truth, or at least to disprove false ideas.
You can read all of this installment by clicking on "Dystopian science Part 2: Conspiracy theories require a magical world". We have one more after you get back.
God is a God of order (c.f. 1 Corinthians 14:33), and we can easily see this in Scripture. For example, He made the sun, moon, and stars “for signs and for seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14)—that assumes knowledge of astronomy, physics, mathematics, a concept of linear time, a calendar system, rationality, and the ability to make empirical observations—all in one verse! Thoughts like this help us to understand that there is a normative order in nature and provides the basis for a pragmatic, practical use of science.

Our thought experiment has turned out unexpectedly optimistic! God has given us all the foundation we need in Scripture to do science and to test the claims of others who claim to be authorities. So where do we start?
To read the final article in its entirety, click on "Dystopian science Part 3: Rebuilding science from the ground up".

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Triassic Tumors or a Very Good Creation

Biblical creationists have some challenges to meet in order to remain faithful to Scripture. One of those is with fundamentally flawed dating methods used by secularists as well as religious compromisers. In this case, a Triassic tumor dated to be 240 million years old.


Secularists and religious compromisers on long ages challenge biblical creationists with faulty evidence. Here, a fossil with bone cancer dated at 240 million years is used.
Pappochelys rosinae reconstruction image credit: Wikimedia Commons / Rainer Schoch
We maintain that the Bible says what it means, and to change the plain reading to accommodate long-age owlhoots is unfaithful to the text (Prov. 30:6, 1 Cor. 4:6, Isaiah 40:8). But what of radiometric dating that puts critters back millions of years, and some of them had cancer? Despite the claims of secularists, radiometric dating has serious flaws. This includes wildly disparate results — including for rocks of known ages. Fact is, the Genesis Flood is a more rational description for what is found in geology.

Compare faulty claims of deep time to Scripture, where God said his creation was very good (Gen. 1:31). It beggars reason to believe that God used the waste, inefficiency, cruelty, and chaos of evolution as his method of creation. He allowed cancer to be in his very good world? No. Death and disease were not there at the beginning, and will not be there at the restoration of all things, old son.
German researchers described rare bone cancer in a Triassic reptile fossil found in limestone near Velberg, Germany. The find reignites conversations about the origin of diseases and ultimately of life.

The team published micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans of the creature’s femur in the journal JAMA Oncology. It showed the insides of the enlarged region and confirmed the haphazard bone growth characteristic of a periosteal osteosarcoma—a rare bone cancer. According to the PhysOrg news that announced the discovery, this disease affects about 850 U.S. citizens each year, but occurs at an even lower rate in fossils.
To read the rest about this fascinating research and its meaning to biblical creationists, click on "Triassic Tumor Raises Creation Questions".

Thursday, April 18, 2019

Appearances of the Creator in the Old Testament

On Resurrection Sunday, most Christians celebrate the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead. While the man Jesus began his earthly life in Bethlehem, God the Son has always existed. He made himself known in several places in the Old Testament. These are called theophanies.


While we celebrate the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we can also remember that he is our Creator. He also appeared in the Old Testament.
Abraham Receiving the Three Angels by Bartolome Esteban Murillo, 1667
There is disagreement among scholars about the nature of theophanies. In the broadest sense, they were encounters with God. There is some debate about the identity of the angel of the Lord (although the text indicates that this was the preincarnate Christ). God was active in human history before he (our Creator) took the form of a man, lived a sinless life, died on the cross, was buried, and rose again the third day. This is one of many reasons to humble ourselves and rejoice.
As Easter approaches, we tend to focus our reflections on the life, death, and glorious resurrection of Christ. We even mark the timeline of history by whether events happened before (BC) or after (AD) Christ’s birth. But Christ’s existence didn’t begin with His time on Earth.

. . .

The Lord Jesus Christ was present at the beginning of creation—He was and is our Creator. His pre-existence is further affirmed by His many appearances documented throughout the Old Testament. Theophany is a theological term that refers to an encounter with God prior to Christ’s incarnation. There are over 50 possible theophanies recorded throughout the Old Testament, primarily concentrated in Genesis, in the Exodus and conquest events, in Judges, and in the prophets.
To read the entire article, click on "Theophanies in the Old Testament: The Creator at Work in His World".


Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Christians, Censorship, and Book Burning

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Christians were warned from the get-go that we would have persecution (1 John 3:13, Mark 4:17, 2 Tim. 3:12, 1 Peter 4:19). They were tortured in various ways, including being thrown to the lions (some atheopaths seem to want that practice reinstated, I have seen this image posted more than once). Today, atheist-run countries actively persecute Bible-believing Christians (such as China), and Mohammedans are rampant; they wiped out entire villages in Nigeria. This is only one example. However, many persecutions of Christians and biblical creationists in Western countries are subtle and insidious.


Anti-Christian and anti-creationist falsehoods that we oppose science are increasing. People who do not have the grit to learn the truth are easily deceived.
Credit: Unsplash / Fred Kearney

Poisoning the Well

Atheists and anti-creationists try to silence Christians and biblical creationists by demonizing us. After all, if you poison the well against individuals and organizations enough, who will want to listen to what we have to say — I mean, aside from bigots who seek confirmation for their biases? You will hear cries that we are "anti-science", which is based on conflating evolution and old Earth philosophies with the word science. This Machiavellian logic implies that if we reject their materialistic philosophies, we reject science itself. An intellectually honest person who peruses sites, books, videos, and so forth of biblical creationists can see for themselves that we use real science.


Suppressing the Truth

I am convinced that in their efforts to suppress the truth (Rom. 1:18-23), anti-Christians seek to justify their rebellion against our Creator. One tinhorn calls God a liar. He also claims since the Ice Age is not in the Bible, the creationist view is "fictitious" (an idea that's plumb loco, but I don't have time to explain the logical fallacies involved). He also says the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. Further, he demanded an explanation of why dinosaur fossils have not been found at the Grand Canyon, was given a link explaining that neither secularists nor creationists expect this, ignored it, and kept on making the same demand. His approach seems to be a kind of Gnostic effort to deny the Bible while elevating personal philosophies above God's Word while simultaneously making a pretense of religiosity. All this while suppressing the truth.

Old Earth proponents also deny the Genesis Flood. After all, if Jesus was wrong about the mustard seed, he was not really the omniscient Creator in the flesh. May as well ignore what he said about the Flood, God's design for marriage, and whatever else strikes a compromiser's fancy. After all, if the Bible has errors, then you treat Scripture like a buffet and pick out what you like. See how that works?

In addition, propagandists spread the falsehood that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, and that the church fathers also held to this error. In reality, the flat Earth idea was spread by anti-Christians. The tinhorn mentioned previously cries that the Bible teaches the earth is flat based on his mishandling of Matt. 4:8. (His error is clearly explained here, but he is too  pusillanimous to accept correction.*) For a passel of links refuting the flat earth both scientifically and theologically, see "The Bible and the Flat Earth".

Over in the formerly Great Britain, the rights of people to actively practice their faith is coming under pressure. (Of course, it is Christians and Jews that are targeted, not Mohammedans or atheists.) While saying that it is acceptable for parents to teach their children about faith, secularists contradict themselves by claiming that children are not receiving real knowledge. I reckon that secularists do not like having their monopoly on indoctrination in atheism challenged. See "The real extremism" for more about these efforts at censorship and persecution.

People like this are intolerant despite their protestations that they favor free speech. Those with opposing view are attacked for expressing their views. Actually, we are hated for even having differing views. Especially because we uphold the Bible. Those people need to repent, and do it quickly.


Who are the Active Censors?

Sidewinders in the secular science industry are building on the "Christians are anti-science" pedagese. They maintain that we favor censorship and maligning the apostle Paul. in a straw man argument. One in particular is asserting that Paul was in favor of book burning, and that he was therefore anti-science. Folks who don't have the grit to use their think bones or even read the passage in question will accept this prevarication. Paul didn't order it, and may not have even known that the voluntary burning of occult books by people who renounced evil had happened.

Religious schools are challenged to cave in to secular ideals. Religious liberty is under assault. For more on this, listen to or read the transcript of The Briefing for March 26, 2019.

An amazing instance of blatant censorship occurred in a 1986 debate at Oxford University. Clinton Richard Dawkins and John Maynard Smith debated A.E. Wilder-Smith and Edgar Andrews. Dawkins told the audience not to vote for the creationists. He thought a vote for creationists would be a disgrace to Oxford (bigotry and the fallacy of special pleading). Someone tampered with the numbers, and the usual amount of press that such events received did not happen. Dr. Wilder-Smith wrote in his memoirs:
In December 1986, I received an inquiry from the Radcliffe Science Library, Oxford, asking if I had ever really held a Huxley Memorial Lecture on February 14, 1986. No records of my having held the lecture as part of the Oxford Union Debate could be found in any library. No part of the official media breathed a word about it. So total is the current censorship on any effective criticism of Neo-Darwinian science and on any genuine alternative.
You can read the report with the above quote at "Fraudulent report at AAAS and the 1986 Oxford University debate". See the very last link on the page regarding the theft of intellectual property.

Those who seek to keep us silenced, who keep creationist research out of the mainstream science publications, those who demonize people they hate, cannot use or understand logic ("You're a liar! Prove me wrong!"), blatantly misrepresent Christians and creationists while playing the victim card — those jaspers are the real censors. Amazingly, secularists pretend that they are the victims and we are the oppressors.



Believing Falsehoods about the Apostle Paul

One reason such vile persecution succeeds is because people shun critical thinking. I also firmly believe that people are getting intellectually lazier nowadays. The subtle persecution continues.
Paul warned that Christ followers would be slandered. A book review in Nature shows it is still going on.
. . . Robert P. Crease reviewed his own book – a practice that is quite unusual. At least we know what the author thinks of his own words. That Nature printed it without any criticism tells us that the journal editors pretty much agree with him. Their headline reads, “The rise and fall of scientific authority — and how to bring it back; Robert P. Crease harks back to the shapers of our scientific infrastructure and what they can tell us about how to handle the threat we now face.” Watch for the bogeyman!
So what does Robert say about his own book under Nature's imprimatur?
To read the entire article, click on "Was the Apostle Paul a Book Burner?"

Lyrics available at the YouTube link

* As in the demand for an answer that he likes for dinosaurs in the Grand Canyon, he repeated this demand while dodging the topic under discussion. Apparently he is expecting others to be mind readers: for AiG to read his mail when he is blocked by them (and blocked by many other people). This makes me think of how leftists demanded the Mueller report about Donald Trump, did not get what they wanted, and are making fools of themselves by demanding more.

Wednesday, April 3, 2019

Jesus and the Mustard Seed

Among the many parables that Jesus told, one was about the mustard seed. He said that it was the "smallest" seed in Matthew 13:32, which atheists and anti-creationists attack by saying that there are other seeds which are smaller, which means to them that Jesus did not know what he was talking about.


Jesus said that the mustard seed was the "smallest". Atheists and other anti-creationists jump on this, but an examination of context and other factors gives us the truth.
Credit: FreeDigitalPhotos.net / jk1991
We expect atheists to find excuses to claim that Jesus is not God, but it is disheartening when owlhoots who claim to be Christian will also claim that he was mistaken in an effort to justify theistic evolution. No, he is the Creator, and knows what he is doing (Col. 1:16, John 1-1-3). As is the case in many instances of confusion and alleged Bible contradictions, context is vitally important. Here, we can look at not only the immediate context, but the greater context.

Jesus was not giving a botany lesson, pilgrim. The parable was an illustration about the kingdom of Heaven. He would have used figures of speech. In fact, I referred to someone as "the tiniest thing", but there are many things tinier. It is interesting that the New International version translates the phrase as, "the smallest of all your seeds" which would apply to the context of his audience. The phrase has also been translated as "the least of all the seeds".

While I have discussed the context, purpose, and figure of speech aspects, the article featured below adds some science aspects for our consideration.
In the parable of the mustard seed, Jesus calls it the smallest seed. But was it really? Both evolutionists and old-earth creationists latch onto this parable, evolutionists to discredit the Bible entirely, and old-earth creationists to prove that the Bible does not have to be taken literally. Both approaches attempt to undermine the authority of God’s Word and challenge the foundation upon which the Christian faith is based.
To read the rest, click on "Are Mustard Seeds the Smallest or Was Jesus Wrong?"


Labels